Only paychecks count in checks and balances

CARPENTER

September 17, 2006|By Paul Carpenter Of The Morning Call

The supreme arrogance of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may be justified.

The members of this court are counting on citizens to become weary, and to be satisfied with meager victories, such as the ouster of 17 wretched legislators and one wretched state Supreme Court justice in last November's elections.

We have known for a long time that this court is rotten.

We could see it in the unseemly behavior of its chief justice, in its unabashed greed, in its imperious decision that all Pennsylvania lawyers are exempt from ethics laws that apply to everyone else, and in its depraved rulings that glaringly violate the supreme law of the commonwealth.

Moreover, this court has presided over the worst lawyer discipline and tort systems in America -- although the court was forced to allow a few paltry reforms of the discipline system when it became obvious to everybody that unscrupulous lawyers were running amok in Pennsylvania.

Until this past week, however, we never knew the depths of the court's contempt for the people it is supposed to serve.

With supreme eloquence, the state Supreme Court told Pennsylvania citizens this: We don't care if you don't like our venal rulings, because we don't think there's anything you can do about them.

This past week's ruling involved illegal pay raises the Legislature enacted for itself and certain other officials, including judges -- but then repealed amid a public uproar.

Now, the high court said in its ruling, those pay hikes indeed violated the Pennsylvania Constitution, but only in a way that applies to legislators, not judges. The court (with only one dissent, and that was on technical grounds) restored the pay hikes for itself.

The ruling rejected a challenge to the way both the pay raise and an earlier measure (to allow slot machines) were enacted. Both were enacted in defiance of the Pennsylvania Constitution, as any child can see simply by reading the first few sentences of Article III.

Much will be said about that 100-page ruling and all its complexities. For today, I'll focus on just a few passages, starting with one on page 27.

"There exists a judicial presumption that our sister branches take seriously their constitutional oaths," the ruling says. "Indeed, a legislative enactment will not be deemed unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution."

How detached from reality is that? The only thing the leaders of the legislative branch take seriously is how to line their own pockets by violating the constitution and how to keep themselves in office by gerrymandering districts and otherwise stacking the political deck.

And if the Supreme Court rubber-stamps everything the legislative branch does as constitutional, with no need for checks and balances, why do we need a judicial branch?

The next page of the ruling does address constitutional principles, by saying the repeal of the pay raises was unconstitutional -- but only as it applied to repealing the pay increases of judges . That repeal, says page 28, "is clearly, palpably and plainly unconstitutional to the extent that it diminishes judicial compensation." (Is there an echo here?)

On page 46, the ruling notes that a challenge to the slot machine legislation claims that the legislation violated Article III, Sections 1 through 4, to which the Supreme Court reacts this way: So what?

The ruling points out that the court gave its blessings to the illegal slots legislation, so that's that, and citizens who don't like it can go to blazes.

You think I'm exaggerating? Look at page 50 of the ruling, which says the Supreme Court will not concern itself with any lawsuit that seeks to show something done by the Legislature was unconstitutional.

"There are other methods, besides lawsuits, which may serve as a corrective tool for legislative excesses, the primary method being the political process," the ruling says. "Act 44 [the pay hike law] cannot be deemed unconstitutional unless we find that it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the constitution."

And it doesn't, proclaimed the members of the Supreme Court -- at least not as far as their own pay is concerned.

So go ahead, just try to vote the rest of your legislators out of office as the Supreme Court suggests, with all the stacked decks concocted to guarantee that it's next to impossible to get rid of most incumbents.

Both the gambling legislation and the pay raise legislation were enacted in flagrant disregard of explicit and clear requirements in Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which requires, among other things, these three provisions:

Legislation cannot be altered to change its original purpose; legislation must be discussed in the open, through a committee process, with no secret measures allowed; and legislation must be considered on three days in each chamber, the House and Senate.